I’m confused b/c I clicked on the link for the new york times tries to keep the flame alive and I was moved to this thread. Is there a technical issue with the link?
There are two articles about the Milwaukee-priest-abusing deaf-boys-scandal in the New York Times:
1**) Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys**
Code:
[nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/)
2) For Years, Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse
Code:
[nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html)
The second article is filled with facts about the decades-long attempt of the deaf boys to get someone to hear and respond to their stories:
Here’s the first paragraph of this article:
“They told other priests. They told three archbishops of Milwaukee. They told two police departments and the district attorney. They used sign language, written affidavits and graphic gestures to show what exactly Father Murphy had done to them. But their reports fell on the deaf ears of hearing people. “
Finally, in July 1996, Archbishop Weakland, the third archbishop involved in the scandal, approached the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
The following is a summary published by Fox News, (not known for its liberal views):
foxnews.com/world/2010/03/25/warned-priest-vatican-failed-remove/
(parentheses mine)
“According to the documentation, in July 1996, then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland sent a letter seeking advice on how to proceed with Murphy to Ratzinger, who led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected pope.
Weakland received no response from Ratzinger, and in October 1996 convened a church tribunal to hear the case.
In March 1997, Weakland wrote to the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura, essentially the Vatican high court, asking its advice because he feared the statute of limitations on Murphy’s alleged crimes might have expired.
Just a few weeks later, Bertone(then Absp. Tarcisio Bertone, SDB, secretary to the Cong.) – now the Vatican’s secretary of state – told the Wisconsin bishops to begin secret disciplinary proceedings against Murphy according to 1962 norms concerning soliciting sex in the confessional, according to the documents.
But a year later, Bertone reversed himself, advising the diocese to stop the process after Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he had repented and that the statute of limitations on the case had expired. Bertone suggested that Murphy should instead be subject to “pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice.”
The archbishop then handling the case, Bishop Raphael Fliss,(from Milwaukee) objected, saying in a letter to Bertone that “I have come to the conclusion that scandal cannot be sufficiently repaired, nor justice sufficiently restored, without a judicial trial against Fr. Murphy.”
Fliss and Weakland then met with Bertone in Rome in May 1998. Weakland informed Bertone that Murphy had no sense of remorse and didn’t seem to realize the gravity of what he had done, according to a Vatican summary of the meeting.
But Bertone insisted that there weren’t “sufficient elements to institute a canonical process” against Murphy because so much time had already passed, according to the summary. Instead, he said Murphy must be forbidden from celebrating Mass publicly outside his home diocese.
Weakland, likening Murphy to a “difficult” child, then reminded Bertone that three psychologists had determined he was a “typical” pedophile, in that he felt himself a victim.
But Bertone suggested Murphy take a spiritual retreat to determine if he is truly sorry, or otherwise face possible defrocking.
“Before the meeting ended, Monsignor Weakland reaffirmed the difficulty he will have to make the deaf community understand the lightness of these provisions,” the summary noted.
The documents contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the office.”
My conclusions from all of this are that Cardinal Ratzinger apparently did not communicate with anyone directly except, probably, Bertone; Bertone was acting according to the Cardinal’s directives, not alone; that the Bertone recommended very light penalties which were considered far too light by the Milwaukee (arch)bishops handling the case ; that the case was dropped from Rome after Murphy wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger.
The article errs in saying there was no response from Card. Ratzinger; there was, after Murphy wrote him directly, in the decision to drop the case.
